• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Live discussion of Robert Mueller's testimoony today - hopefully respectful

i disagree

but i guess that is why we have a jurisprudence system

he can think anything he wants...hell he can even yell at the top of his lungs he wants to fire x person

until he actually commits said action, there is nothing there

and his people stopped him from making that blunder....

but i guess you can start impeachment trials and the american people can weigh in....

i dont think you are going to like what they have to say on the matter

There's no disagreement. You attempt to rob a bank you go to jail.

You're not getting out of this. It's displaying your hypocrisy.

Delicious.
 
LOL So you have changed the laws for Trump. Under current law it makes no difference whether an attempt to obstruct justice is successful or not. The attempt is a felony on its own.

What laws have been changed, you get counsel from your subordinate, don't take action and somehow that is obstruction? Where in the hell do you get your law degree? what law was changed? An attempt by someone who had the authority isn't an attempt at all as no action took place.
 
Why would Trump have a corrupt intent, which is necessary, if he didn't collude and no collusion was found. Mueller said so.

That is retarded and a lie. A retarded lie, and yet again I am so thoroughly shocked that someone who picked the name "Integrityrespec" would tell a retarded lie. I thought you'd run out of room for the "t", but now I wonder: were you using "respec" in the WoW sense? As in, you're going to try to respec your account so it starts making posts with integrity?



PS: Trump explicitly stated that they did not investigate "collusion." He stated they investigated "conspiracy". And if you read the report, you will see they found evidence of every element of a criminal conspiracy EXCEPT an explicit agreement with Russia. Russia helped. Trump new. Trump welcomed it. There just wasn't an agreement, so he wrote in the report that Trump did not engage in a criminal conspiracy.

PSS: Mueller explicitly wrote as to obstruction, "At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

You need to either change your account name, or you need to stop telling these retarded lies. It really is inexplicable, since the GOP would never vote to convict Trump on articles of impeachment even if the Dems wanted to pursue them.
 
That is retarded and a lie. A retarded lie, and yet again I am so thoroughly shocked that someone who picked the name "Integrityrespec" would tell a retarded lie. I thought you'd run out of room for the "t", but now I wonder: were you using "respec" in the WoW sense? As in, you're going to try to respec your account so it starts making posts with integrity?



PS: Trump explicitly stated that they did not investigate "collusion." He stated they investigated "conspiracy". And if you read the report, you will see they found evidence of every element of a criminal conspiracy EXCEPT an explicit agreement with Russia. Russia helped. Trump new. Trump welcomed it. There just wasn't an agreement, so he wrote in the report that Trump did not engage in a criminal conspiracy.

PSS: Mueller explicitly wrote as to obstruction, "At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The question remains: why is it so important for Trumpists to tell retarded lies? Does the campaign send you a little gold pin if you tell enough of them each day?




But you need not answer that. Instead, you need to either change your account name, or you need to stop telling retarded lies.

Corruption is this obese, bloviating, idiotic President's middle name.
 
What laws have been changed, you get counsel from your subordinate, don't take action and somehow that is obstruction? Where in the hell do you get your law degree? what law was changed? An attempt by someone who had the authority isn't an attempt at all as no action took place.

Where did you get your law degree?

Because a 1000 people who have one say it is obstruction
 
No, it isn't, no court is going to rule that way because he WASN'T fired, why not?? Trump had the authority

Try to rob a bank and you go to jail.

Try to impede an investigation you go to jail.

By your logic, attempting to abduct someone isn't a jailable offense. Attemtping to rob a bank isn't a jailable offense. attempting to murder someone is not a jailable offense.

Your hypocrisy is showing. The law and order party is a walking comedy of hypocrisy and partisanship.
 
He absolutely can. An intelligence investigation is about gathering information about intention and objectives of foreign adversaries. Its not about finding evidence for a prosecution. As there is no justice being sought, there is none to be obstructed.



Evidently. And Mueller wasnt fired and the investigation did not end.

H.

OK. And the false belief that Trump had conspired with Russia, was compromised by Russia, was an agent of Russia (all arguments that were raised), placed great pressure on Mr. trump.



Protect himself from what? THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY. NO CRIME.

You just aren't getting this, the law I mean. But you don't want to get it because then you'd have no argument to present here.

Russia interfered in the election. Russia did it to help Trump. The Trump campaign welcomed the help from Russia. The president's own son welcomed it, 'I love it'. Trump himself sought to make money from the Trump Moscow tower.
 
No, it isn't, no court is going to rule that way because he WASN'T fired, why not?? Trump had the authority

Like I said....we have your opinion.


Abd the opinion of 1000 prosecutors. Lol
 
" the report does not exonerate him"- pathetic liberals.

If I'm a pathetic liberal, then why was my statement true?

Mueller report: "At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

:shrug:




At any rate, I think I'm done with this thread. Like all threads on the subject, it's filled with Trump supporters trying to derail the subject with a hurricane of lies and personal attacks. And as with the other threads, it's inexplicable, because even if Mueller violated DOJ policy by saying Trump was guilty, the GOP would never vote to convict him on articles of impeachment. He's safe by virtue of might makes right, yet still you are compelled to lie about everything to try to defend him.

Are you perhaps trying to convince yourselves but won't admit it to yourselves?
 
You just aren't getting this, the law I mean. But you don't want to get it because then you'd have no argument to present here.

Russia interfered in the election. Russia did it to help Trump. The Trump campaign welcomed the help from Russia. The president's own son welcomed it, 'I love it'. Trump himself sought to make money from the Trump Moscow tower.

I repeat to those posters: by their logic, attempting a crime isn't a crime. Attempting to abduct your neighbor's kids is not a criminal act. Well, not if you're president Trump.
 
What laws have been changed, you get counsel from your subordinate, don't take action and somehow that is obstruction? Where in the hell do you get your law degree? what law was changed? An attempt by someone who had the authority isn't an attempt at all as no action took place.

Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):

There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.

Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

No one has the "authority" to fire a prosecutor who is investigating them....at least not in a country with the rule of law. Trump is guilty of multiple felonies.
 
Last edited:
Hahahah!! The Mueller Investigation in Three Acts:

Act 1:
moore1.webp

Act 2:
moore2.webp

Act 3:
moore3.webp


source.gif
 
If I'm a pathetic liberal, then why was my statement true?

Mueller report: "At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

:shrug:

That "exonerate" nonsense has been established to be worse than irrelevant. It has been established to be worse than a smoke screen. It has been established to be nothing more than a partisan tactic on the part of Mueller and those partisans who worked for him.
 
Me? Take it up with 1000 prosecutors. Lol

They say he committed obstruction.


But then we have your opinion. Lol

It serves absolutely no purpose to continue responding to you as you seek attention without any valid argument, what difference does it make how many agree with you as the rule of law will be determined by a judge and apparently you believe the investigation was impeded by Trump NOT firing Mueller, that is asinine
 
That "exonerate" nonsense has been established to be worse than irrelevant. It has been established to be worse than a smoke screen. It has been established to be nothing more than a partisan tactic on the part of Mueller and those partisans who worked for him.

In your opinion
 
Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

No one has the "authority" to fire a prosecutor who is investigating them....at least not in a country with the rule of law.

Again wishful thinking on your part, apparently you believe that Trump impeded the investigation thus obstructing justice by NOT firing Mueller. That is liberal logic and why you have zero credibility
 
It serves absolutely no purpose to continue responding to you as you seek attention without any valid argument, what difference does it make how many agree with you as the rule of law will be determined by a judge and apparently you believe the investigation was impeded by Trump NOT firing Mueller, that is asinine

Dude. You do not understand the elements of the crime. You are giving a legal opinion here that is ignorant. I am saying dont believe my opinion. Look at the letter signed by 1000 prosecutors that say it is obstruction. How you can not see this is beyond me
 
Because you want something to happen doesn't make it illegal activity, Mueller specifically stated that the investigation wasn't impeded which is a requirement for obstruction. the dumb question deserves an answer, is it your opinion that Trump impeded the investigation thus obstructed justice by NOT firing Mueller? You people have no understanding of the law at all and are motivated solely by hatred not the rule of law. NO court is ever going to convict anyone of obstruction when no action took place and the investigation wasn't impeded

The person doing the obstructing need not have committed a crime and neither does someone they may have been trying to protect from prosecution; indeed, the obstructor need not have intended to protect anyone from prosecution. The person doing the obstruction need not have succeeded in impeding the investigation.


United States v. Durham, 432 Fed. Appx. 88 (2013)

United States v. Rickie Durham – CourtListener.com

3rd Circuit vase. Police officer has a sister of a childhood friend, and this sister is dating a bad dude being investigated by the feds. Officer contacts the childhood friend to warn of coming raids and that if the boyfriend goes down so does the childhood friend's sister. The bad boyfriend also learned of this and instructed various co-conspirators.

Part of holding: That the officer's intent was simply to protect his childhood friend's sister - a person who committed no crime - but not to actually obstruct the investigation into the bad boyfriend does NOT mean he could not be convicted of obstruction of justice. As usual, they cite black latter law as part of the decision:

To prove obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, the Government must establish: "(1) that there was an agency proceeding; (2) that the defendant was aware of that proceeding; and (3) that the defendant intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding." United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 325 (6th Cir. 2010) *[**9]*(quoting United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 174 (2d Cir. 2006).

Id. at 91. Note the absence of any requirement that the person doing the obstructing having done anything criminal (other than the obstructing), the absence of any requirement that the person doing the obstructing even be under investigation in the first place, and the absence of any requirement that the person have succeeded in obstructing. Note how stupid the lie Conservative just told is.


Direct application to Trump:
even if we assume Trump knew for a fact he was innocent, attempting to thwart the investigation is still obstruction even if his intent is, say, to protect Barron from feeling sad because meanyhead liberals unfairly do not like his daddy, and that even if he failed utterly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ther-underlying-crime/?utm_term=.f39c2fb40f20
 
I had CNN on at that time and never heard "CNN" say any such thing. Who are you claiming said it (since CNN is a company and can't speak)? I can easily find it.

LOL. So your argument is "Zomg! CNN can't talk!" :roll: ... there is a reason I no longer respond to your nonsense.
 
Again wishful thinking on your part, apparently you believe that Trump impeded the investigation thus obstructing justice by NOT firing Mueller. That is liberal logic and why you have zero credibility

What about the part of the law that says NO OBSTRUCTION needs to have occured, the attempt is the crime do you not understand? It's like saying a failed terrorist attack is not illegal.
 
Again wishful thinking on your part, apparently you believe that Trump impeded the investigation thus obstructing justice by NOT firing Mueller. That is liberal logic and why you have zero credibility

My God just read the elements of the crime already!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom